( 1 ) THE legal issue involved herein is of great relevance for day to day functioning of our judicial system and the right of the advocates to plead and argue the cases coming before the Courts; Because of certain controversy before the learned single Judge as to whether an advocate who has not filed Vakalatnama for a party in a case can appear,plead and argue for him without presenting a memo of appearance and obtaining express permission from the Court in terms of Rule 3 of Chapter V of the High Court of Karnataka Rule 1959 (in short the 'hc Rules' ).

( 2 ) THE learned Single Judge by his impugned order has taken the view that"when an Advocate who had filed Vakalatnama engaged the services of another Advocate to plead and argue his clients' case has to obtain the permission of the Court as contemplated under Rule 3 (1) and (2) of Chapter V of the High Court Rules and unless and until `kant32 such a permission had been obtained, he as a matter of right cannot engage the services of another Advocate to appear and argue for and on his behalf. That again he has to do by making out a reasonable cause thereto as contemplated under Rule 3 (1) of the said rules. "

( 3 ) IN order to set out the backdrop for resolving the controversy, it may be appropriate to notice that the impugned order has been passed by the learned single Judge in a set of writ petitions wherein co-operative banks and societies had challenged the validity of S. 57 (2a) and S. 29-G (6) of the Co-Operative Societies Act on the ground of certain constitutional infirmities. When the case was called out, Sri K. M. Nataraj, learned Advocate, who had filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the petitioners, sought permission to engage the services of another Advocate Sri A. G. Holla, who by that time had not been designated as Senior Advocate to argue the matter on his behalf. Learned single Judge felt that such a permission cannot be accorded to an advocate who has not filed vakalatnama unless advocate filing Vakalatnama (in short "advocate on record") makes out a reasonable cause for the same in terms of Rule 3 (1) of Chapter V of the Rules, i. e. the Advocate on record is prevented by sickness or engaged in another Court or by other reasonable cause from appearing and conducting the case of his client. According to the learned single Judge, this requirement is not required to be fulfilled, if the advocate on record instructs "senior Advocate" for pleading and arguing a case of his client.

( 4 ) THE present writ appeals have been preferred by the writ petitioners as well as the Karnataka State Bar Council. According to them, the view taken by the learned single Judge strikes at the fundamental right of the advocates to practice their profession as guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. Their contention is that such a constitutional right cannot be made dependent on the discretion of the Court and therefore the concerned statutory provisions should be construed and interpreted in a manner which completely dilutes the discretion of the Court conferred under the HC Rules.

( 5 ) ANSWER to the controversy raised herein depends on careful and harmonious reading and construction of S. 16 of the Advocates Act, (in short the 'act'), Chapter-I of Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules (in short the "bci" Rules), Rules containing in Chapter III of the HC rules, S. 119 and Order III, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short "cpc" ). Interpretation in a case of any ambiguity or inconsistency in application of these provisions has to be resolved by keeping in view clauses 1 (g) and (6) of Article 19 of the Constitution of India. 5a. Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India declares that all citizens shall have the right to practice any profession or carry on occupation, trade or business. Anyhow, this fundamental right is circumscribed by clause (6) of Article 19 of the Constitution which reads as under.- art. 19. Protection of certain rights

Click Here to Read the rest of this document